Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup

Four new opinions from The Supremes today. Well, technically seven, but I only blog the law, not what the law coulda shoulda woulda been.

 

City of Auburn v. Hedlund

The court defined victim as "anyone injured or harmed as the result of a crime." Thus, the sole surviving passenger couldn't be charged as accomplice to DUI as she was injured in the resulting crash.

This will probably lead to anomalous results. Picture, for instance, an accomplice to a drug deal gone bad that ends up shot in the process. There's a slew of possibilities that could get someone off. I hope we can expect an amendment by the legislature.

 

State v. Daniels

This is a double jeopardy case with the court split and Justice Madsen concurring with the lead opinion in result only. Thus, no change in the law and nothing to blog about.

 

State v. Failey

Failey was facing a third strike. However, the "first" strike was a 1974 Robbery occurring before Title 9A was enacted. Thus, the court looked to what the equivalent would have been. His 1974 Robbery was equivalent of 2d Degree Robbery today, which washed out due to there being a ten year gap between offenses. Failey gets a reprieve -- let's hope he uses it wisely.

 

State v. Lanciloti

In an unsurprising move (pragmatism-fueled), the court held that the legislature had plenary power to divide King County into two judicial districts and summon jurors from each of those districts (Seattle and Kent RJC, in case you weren't familiar). The question really came down to whether art. I, s. 22 of Washington's Constitution -- providing that juries be drawn from the county in which the crime occurred -- required the jury to be drawn from the whole county. The court held that Lanciloti did not meet his burden of showing that this subdivision led to an unrepresentative jury pool. The opinion is an interesting historical read, but that's about it.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.